The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 18.3. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 50.3x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 18.3, ranking #2 overall.

On price, Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is roughly 50.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Fable 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 56.3 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

  • cost matters — it's about 50.3x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.3
#2
18.3
#211
Reasoning
53.3
#5
19.6
#197
Agents
41.9
#2
7.2
#135
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.99 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Vision
41.7#2
12.2#104
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 50 for Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinkingdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 50.5x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.99
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's 131,072 tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Input131,072 tokens
Output32,768 tokens
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 11 months newer than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 weeks ago

11mo newer
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

11 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

Claude Fable 5.1

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.29/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.99/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 18.3. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.1 compare to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores OSWorld 2.0: 77.9%, CursorBench v3.2: 73.4%, Humanity's Last Exam: 65.0%, GDPval-AA: 61.8%, Terminal-Bench 4.0: 55.8%. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 50.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.20/M input and $0.99/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.3 vs 18.3), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.20/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons